AuthorTopic: What films have you seen recently? (Read 140230 times)

Another French film, although a little more orthodox. But a tough film to review, nonetheless. It's an amazing (true) story about a man living after becoming almost completely paralyzed after suffering a stroke. There are some amazing scenes at the beginning of the film that attempt to recreate what this might be like from the point of view of the victim. It's hard-hitting in showing how torturous it must be to live in this condition, but it's also surprisingly triumphant in the way the the main character takes on life despite his disabilities. One nitpick: I didn't like the fact that even after his stroke, he was still surrounded by so many women. No, that's not my nitpick, my nitpick is that they were all so boring. One dramatic scene relies on his relationships with two of these women, but because they were so one-dimensional, it came off as laborious.

Another French film, although a little more orthodox. But a tough film to review, nonetheless. It's an amazing (true) story about a man living after becoming almost completely paralyzed after suffering a stroke. There are some amazing scenes at the beginning of the film that attempt to recreate what this might be like from the point of view of the victim. It's hard-hitting in showing how torturous it must be to live in this condition, but it's also surprisingly triumphant in the way the the main character takes on life despite his disabilities. One nitpick: I didn't like the fact that even after his stroke, he was still surrounded by so many women. No, that's not my nitpick, my nitpick is that they were all so boring. One dramatic scene relies on his relationships with two of these women, but because they were so one-dimensional, it came off as laborious.

The Rating: 8

Hrm! That's odd, I thought I posted a rating for this one, since I saw it around the time that this thread started. I thought it was a great film, one of the best of that year. I think in terms of the women being boring, it was a matter of being truthful to the novel or being cinematic (because in good cinema, you would not have linear, matter-of-fact characters). It is a film that is different in a lot of ways, visually and narratively. It is much all right that the film did not have full or evolving characters; it followed the motif of a limited perspective (also in the unique cinematography, flashbacks, and voice-overs), one that centered on Jean-Do. It's a character piece that takes its definition quite seriously.

I've seen Synecdoche, New York three times now and I'm retracting my rating and giving it a "7/10" instead.

Tropic Thunder: 8. Pretty much everything AC said about it. First seeing the previews before it came out, I was thinking, "this is gonna suck." Well I stand corrected, and now all I have to say is, "Just 'cause it's a theme song, doesn't mean it's not true."

Goldfinger: 7. The fifth Bond movie I've seen so far, and while good, a real victim of its age. Sean Connery, along with the rest of the cast is good, the writing and the plot were good, but just a few things I couldn't live with. The lack of much sound during the action sequences killed the atmosphere, the ending was a little anticlimactic, Goldfinger's death was just silly, and maybe this is a byproduct of the Craig films, but the portrayal of women was a little much. Pussy Galore, c'mon.

Don't mess with Bond. He'll chase you to the ends of the Earth and kill you. Don't mess with Daniel Craig's Bond. He'll chase you to the ends of the Earth and kill you in the most painful way immediately available to him.

007: Quantum of Solace is a non-stop adrenaline rush that continues Daniel Craig's haunted rendition of Bond, and it continues the storyline left at the end of Casino Royale. The first thing that struck me about this movie is its unusual pacing; I honestly thought that the director hit the fast-forward button for two hours since everything is done in a hurry with relatively little time for introspection, character development and sex. To be fair, the drama is more meaningful here than in other Bond film outside of Casino Royale, and the idea of adding a Bond girl who is equally as tormented by hatred as the spy himself is interesting, but I feel that the drama is really secondary to the sheer momentum of events.

Instead of the usual classy spy approach, the movie takes on I'm-gonna-shove-a-pitchfork-through-your-throat approach where Bond goes on a literal killing spree and murderously stalks the primary antagonist for half the movie since the poor guy is associated with the person who killed his girlfriend back in Casino Royale. The actual plot is rather scant, and many of the components really aren't meaningful. It's really Bond's hatred that drives the film, and it's the concept of forgiveness that changes Bond.

My main beef with the movie is ironically one of its strongest assets: the fight scenes. You see, it seems that the director did not only rush over the plot, the character development and the build-up, the fight scenes are on overdrive as well. I literally suffered minor strokes during the movie because portions of my brain exploded at the sensory overload. The camera jumps around like a gnat high on caffeine, which taxed the hell out of my poor brain since it tried to make sense of each scene while processing the continually frantic change of events. Also, the movie tries unsuccessfully to show parallel events. I have no clue how a dramatic crescendo at a soap opera is comparable to Bond killing off some goons, but I know that they made the confusing fight scenes even more hectic. Despite these qualms, I really did enjoy the spectacle since the movie has some impressive spectacle (I feel bad the for the guy who had to think of the physics behind the free-fall fight scene) and the cold realism behind some of the events (some innocent bystanders get seriously injured by some of the gunfights).

In short, this is a fun movie that could have used a more refined camera usage for the fight scenes and a bit more development for some of its side characters, but the underlying dramas are compelling and each event are fun to watch so it has my thumbs up.

It seems to me that there's a growing tendency recently for action sequences to be baffling and exhausting experiences and whether the audience has a clue what's actually going on is secondary. I actually don't think it's a completely bad thing (provided it doesn't become the norm), since if it's done right it can make for a really gripping and suspenseful experience.

For me, there is nothing susspenssful~ about getting a headache over unnecessarily shaky cameras (I just think there is a limit to how much you can "shake" the damn thing) and ear-splitting noises. There are plenty are alternatives to make an engaging, adrelaine-pumping action scenes without packing as much dynamite as you can. By the way, I'm only commenting on the very first car chase, since I thought the following action sequences were pretty good.

I finally got to see Quantum of Solace, but I definitely could not keep up with where the hell the camera was going in all of the action scenes. Overall, the movie was ok and I think that if I had any idea of what to absorb, I would probably say its great like Casino Royale. Yeah, I didn't really understand what the hell was going on at all the whole time. Oh, and if you ever download and watch the crappier quality versions for this movie, the camera work will definitely make you wonder if you went blind or passed out. That frenetic pace just makes a person blink, A Lot good quality or not.

Well, I saw this movie months ago, but I thoroughly enjoyed John Woo's "Red Cliff" which is based on the famous battle from the novel "Romance of the Three Kingdoms." The fact that I was actually convinced (enough) by Takeshi Kaneshiro's role as the enigmatic genius, Zhuge Liang was surprising since I never thought he could have pulled that off, at all. One thing that is pretty nice is that you do not really need to have read the book to understand what is going either. In terms of accuracy, there was some love subplot John Woo threw into the film with Cao Cao and some random whore that did not really convey some sort of motive as intended.

In anycase, part 2 of the epic is coming up this month and I can not wait to see it. If you saw the Chinese theater version, then that was part one that you saw. If you saw the international version, then its a condensed version of the actual product.

The plot's potential is immense and unique - a group of ageless adolescents in an endless dogfight warfare that has an ulterior purpose. The big problem is the way the story is presented; the pace is painstakingly slow (which more importantly was unnecessary) and this kills the momentum some scenes were building up. Furthermore, there were too many still shots which are a tad too long.

Two prominent people in the crew are apparently Mamoru Oshii and Kenji Kawai and sadly, their collaborative work here are not as good as their previous one, Ghost in the Shell: Innocence. One blunt but to-the-point way to describe this movie is that it wasted its own potential, and it's sad because I was expecting a quite a lot prior to watching it.

My mind is turning to mush just thinking about it. I knew the movie had to take some turn for insanity at some point, but the twist was, well... holy shit! I think this just might go into my top five movies of all time if I ever took the time to think one up.

I was meaning to watch this four years ago, but didn't manage to for some forgotten reason. The content of the documentary movie didn't surprise me so much, but it did shed some light about what McDonald's used to be like and the changes implemented by them from 2004 onwards. This is one of those times where I'm glad to undergo military service for 2 years to change my diet habits and get fit at the same time. Perhaps military service can help tackle the epidermic obesity issue...

Part quirky, nervous black comedy, part family drama, but overall, a seriously well made film, with outstanding performances from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney in the lead roles. The characters are very complex and the film explores the depressing reality of caring for an ailing parent with a very balanced and considered approach. The characters are literally made up of a pile of dilemmas and their lives, disordered before the start of the story, go into disarray when they have to care for their father who has dementia. A few minor flaws: one piece of foreshadowing makes an already predictable ending as obvious as possible, while I didn't think Hoffman's character's development was all that profound, certainly not compared with the amount of character development that Linney's character received. Otherwise, an excellent film.

Well, I saw this movie months ago, but I thoroughly enjoyed John Woo's "Red Cliff" which is based on the famous battle from the novel "Romance of the Three Kingdoms." The fact that I was actually convinced (enough) by Takeshi Kaneshiro's role as the enigmatic genius, Zhuge Liang was surprising since I never thought he could have pulled that off, at all. One thing that is pretty nice is that you do not really need to have read the book to understand what is going either. In terms of accuracy, there was some love subplot John Woo threw into the film with Cao Cao and some random whore that did not really convey some sort of motive as intended.

In anycase, part 2 of the epic is coming up this month and I can not wait to see it. If you saw the Chinese theater version, then that was part one that you saw. If you saw the international version, then its a condensed version of the actual product.

Saw this yesterday, and I'm so glad Red Cliff didn't make its way to Australian big screen to steal my o precious $12. I didn't like ANYTHING about it (well...close). Disgusting use of slow-motions, ridiculously retarded final battle (I can't stress this RETARDED enough), characters weren't anything memorable and they butchered the plot entire way through and placed instead random craps that didn't hit any chord with me. Actually, there were few well directed scenes, but they're too few. Has to be the single most hyped movie of the year for me.

I'm cheating, since this is about the fourth time I've seen this film. They just happened to show it on TV, so I watched it. Parts of it are a bit over-the-top and theatrical (such as the excessive use of slow-mo during action scenes) and parts of it are a bit difficult to believe, but on the whole it's a very evocative and dramatic film. It works, I guess, because the character development of the main character, Captain Algren (Tom Cruise) is so profound. In fact, the character development all round is very good. It has its flaws, but it's absorbing, moving and lasting, which makes it an excellent film experience. Although I wouldn't watch it on TV again...

Being an avid fan of South Park, I never thought I would levy this argument against Borat, but the main reason that I hated this movie is because the title character shamelessly took advantage of the kindness (and the vitriol) of the people around him. I've never found people making asses out of themselves to get reactions funny, and since this movie is pretty much a non-stop 90 minutes of that, I had to hit pause every ten minutes just to take a break from the stupidity. I suppose I have to give this movie credit for being original and getting a few unintentional -albeit cheap- laughs, but it is ultimately a waste of time for anyone but drunken college students.